sovereign issue. i think they are resistant to international pressure when it comes to them making decisions about their currency policy and monetary policy. but it is my belief that it is actually in china's interest that -- to achieve this rebalancing because over time china's going to have to shift away from an economy that is solely oriented on exports and is going to have to start shifting towards an economy that is emphasizing on domestic consumption and production and is preventing bubbles from building up within the economy. .

it is our hope as pressure builds for north korea to

improve its economic performance, to brick out of that isolation. we will see a return to the six-party talks and we will see a change in behavior. sanctions are not a magic wand. unfortunately, nothing in international relations is. but i do think that the approach that we've taken with respect to north korea makes it more likely for them to alter their behavior than had there been no consequences whatsoever to them testing a nuclear weapon. chuck todd. >> thank you, mr. president. given the goals of this conference and your administration on nuclear policy, why does it appear as if pakistan is playing by a different set of rules. i notice they haven't signed on, but it appears they're expanding

their nuclear program and the proximity to al qaeda. should there be more pressure internationally on pakistan not just coming from the united states, but the world? >> i don't think pakistan is playing by a different set of rules. we have been very clear to pakistan, as we have been to every country, that we think they should join the n.p.t. i have actually seen progress over the last several years with respect to pakistan's nuclear security issues. i want to lower tensions throughout southeast asia when it comes to nuclear programs. and the fact that the president signed on and made a range of commitments that will make it more likely that we don't see proliferation activities or trafficking occurring out of pakistan is a positive thing. do we have a lot more work to do? absolutely. but i think that the prime

minister's presence here was an important step in assuring that we do not see a nuclear crisis anywhere in south asia. jeff mason. >> thank you, mr. president. a follow-up question on two that have been asked. how relate particular do you believe it is that countries will agree on sanctions in the coming weeks, which is the deadline you're looking for? and second follow-up on pakistan, is the united states confident that pakistan's nuclear materials are protected and will not be vulnerable to terrorists, like al qaeda? >> to take the second question first just as a part of a follow-up on chuck's question, i feel confident about pakistan's security around its nuclear weapons programs. but that doesn't mean that there

isn't improvement to make in all of our nuclear security programs. you'll recall that we had a little incident a while back where we had nuclear-tipped missles on a bomber flying across the united states and nobody knew about it. and secretary gates took exactly the right step, which was to hold those in charge accountable and to significantly and to alter our practices to make sure something like that didn't happen again. i think it's important to note that every nuclear power, every country that has a civilian nuclear energy program has to take better steps to secure these materials. and pakistan is not exempt from that, but we aren't either. and that's the goal of this summit and that was the goal of the work plan that we have put forward. with respect to sanctions, i

think that we have a strong number of countries on the security council who believe this is the right thing to do. but i think these negotiations can be difficult. and i am going to push as hard as i can to make sure that we get strong sanctions have consequences for iran as it's making calculations about its nuclear program and those are done on a timely basis. i'm not go to go speculate beyond that in terms of where we are. last question. bloomberg. >> thank you, mr. president, good afternoon. given the progress you have cited in recent days on your foreign policy agenda, to what extent do you feel like you have gained political capital with which to take further to the

international stage for the rest of this year to perhaps rejuvinate some initiatives in trouble spots such as the middle east and elsewhere? >> well, i think the work we have done in recent days around nuclear security and nuclear disarmment are good. they're good just in and of themselves. so we are very pleased with the progress we have made and could not have done this without extraordinary cooperation, first from president medvedev when it came to the start treaty and my colleagues here today when it came to this nuclear security summit. what i think it signifies is so many of the challenges we face internationally can't be solved by one nation alone, but i do think that america's leadership is important in order to get

issues on the international agenda and to move in concert with other countries to have an effective response. there are a host of other issues obviously that have to be addressed. and one of the points that was made during this summit is we're talking here about the instruments of potential war or terrorism, but obviously, there are also the reasons, the rags nal, excuses for conflict that have to be addressed as well. i remain committed to being a partner with countries around the world and in particular, hot spots around the world, to see if we can reduce those tensions and resolve those conflicts. and the middle east would be a prime example. i think that the need for peace

between israelis and palestinians in the arab states remains as critical as ever. it is a very hard thing to do. and i know that even if we are applying all of our political capital to that issue, the israeli people, through their government, and the palestinian people through the palestinian authority as well as other arab states may say to themselves, we are not prepared to resolve these issues no matter how much pressure the united states brings to bear. and the truth is, in some of these conflicts, the united states can't impose solutions unless the participants in these conflicts are willing to break out of old patterns of ag tag nism. i think it was former secretary of state jim baker who said in the context of middle east peace, we can't want it more

than they do. but what we can make sure of is that we are constantly present, constantly engaged in setting out very clearly to both sides our belief that not only is it in the interests of each party to resolve these conflicts, but it's also in the interest of the united states. it is a vital national security interest of the united states to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower and when conflicts break out one way or another, we get pulled into them. and that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure. so i'm going to keep on at it, but i think on all these issues, nuclear disarmament, nuclear

proliferation, meast peace -- middle east peace, progress is not going to be measured not in days or weeks, but it's going to take time and progress will be halting. and sometimes we'll take one step forward and two steps back and there will be frustrations. so it's not going to run on the typical cable news 24/7 news cycle. but if we are persistent and we've got the right approach, then over time, i think we can make progress. all right? thank you very much everybody. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> officials from more than 40 countries are attending the nuclear security summit. president obama and some of the officials at the summit earlier today. u.s. and russian officials completed a nuclear agreement

today that calls for both countries to complete and operate facilities and dispose of 34 tons of plutonium, to produce electricity. we are going live from brookings institution and hear from president medvedev. >> before turning the program over to him, i would be remiss if i did not convey on behalf of all of us our deepest condolences to president medvedev and his fellow citizens on the tragedy that they suffered as a result of the terrorist outrage two weeks ago on march 29. i happened to be riding as a passenger on the moscow metro just a few days ago. it was a powerful and moving experience. a reminder of the courage and the fortitude of a great people. i might add that we all observed

from a distance with admiration and with compassion another recent event in moscow. while russians were still grieving for their own come patriots, president medvedev led a gathering of laying flowers he at the gate of the polish embassy. the russian people are fortunate to have and our guest of honor today a leader who is working so hard to modernize their economy and also working with mr. obama to build for all of us a safer world. mr. president, the podium is yours. [applause]

>> ladies and gentlemen, first of all, i would like to say a few words. first of all, i would like to thank you for the invitation to speak in this leading research center of the united states of america. it is considered to be the stronghold of liberal thought and i know that this place is the same of the talent found dry of the political class. now, this is high time that i, quote, robert brookings, who once said the activity of the institution he had established is based upon the belief that there is a necessity to do precise and impartial identification of studies and presenting ideas without any kind of ideology. from the first days of their work, your analysts advocate

precisely this principle and this principle helped finding solutions for most difficult problems of the global politics and internal problems as well. today, the world is going through a period of profound transformation and faces serious challenges in its search for new development, although this phrase can be used at any period of the development of the humankind. and for us, it is very important that there is con depp cordance and interdependence of our interests. the world will be harm moan youse when the parts will not collide but interact. and creates a basis for development. democracy, human rights and market economy make up the basis of not only national

development, but also some common set of international set of values. the dialogue between russia and the united states makes up an important part of those. i am sincerely happy that our cooperation is starting to yield concrete results. moreover, i am glad that over the last year we managed to change the atmosphere of the russian-american relationships. that doesn't mean that our relations have become cloudless and everything is perfect, but the environment has been changed. and there are direct results. and i must say that i am glad that i'm part of that. this meeting is taking place right after the washington summit on the nuclear security. it has been a complete success.

i don't remember such clear summits when all the participants would be unanimous in their assessments over the situation. this is not economy, global crisis discussion. this is the topic crucial for every state and it's a real threat, a real challenge for all of us. last week, i would like to say once again, president obama and me signed a new treaty on reduction and limitation of strategic offensive arms. and we made real progress. whatever the analysts say about this treaty, they keep saying that the balance is changing and it can be advantageous for some of us, but nevertheless, this is a real success.

russia and america have not an easy history in relationship. sometimes we run into problems. sometimes we suffocated each other and embraced at other times. there was an abyss dividing us. but we should not try to find differences. we should build long-term relationship for the future based upon democracy, values and economic freedom and common goals to counter global threats. true, we have very different history. and people see things -- sometimes they see things in different ways. the u.s. has been developing market economy for two centuries already, while our country, in

the 20th century have gone through a sequence of economic and political experiments. so as i strongly believe, russia needs several decades of gradually building up efficient political and economical system. and this is the only way our dispute will be living in the past. to make this happen, there is no need to teach each other how to live well. we should communicate on a regular basis in an honest manner, being absolutely frank. the problems of our country are well known to us. those are corruption, technological underdevelopment and unhealthy lifestyles.

but we have begun to change our system 20 years ago. and this system, i would like to highlight. the system does have its own traditions. and it has the trace of old-time traditions that have become habits. sometimes they are an obstacle. but to a certain extent they provide protection to a society and prevent it from falling apart. we know how to deal with these problems using the experience of our friends. we have to build partnership on the whole range of matters. on our part, we are ready to provide assistance to the united states if it is needed. and sometimes it is needed, resolving some problems. declaring the principles of democracy is not what is needed.

a lot of countries do that. and not even changing laws, although improvement to legislation is a necessary thing. this is not enough. what is important is that we exercise the principles of democracy. practice is the criteria of choice and political practice or legal practice indicates all the best and the worst parts in the system. this is real important. and that's when we will fight corruption. then we will discharge people who are unqualified for their service and what is important today is receiving feedback from the citizens. and i think that this should be done by every official, every statesman whatever level they have.

they should use technology. i try to do this. and i believe others should do that as well. today, we have lot of opportunities to do that. and sometimes i think that very often states people have become slaves to their aides. so materials make the files and present them to read. and sometimes they decide what can be shown to the leader and what cannot be shown. because they want to prevent their country and their work in a positive light. but the time has changed. whatever i read or president obama reads, we always have the possibility to go online and see what is happening in reality. this doesn't mean that internet is the final source of truth,

but this is an alternative source of information. we don't need our aides that much today. we can immerse ourselves into information. this is a very important advance that we don't sometimes realize to the full extent. we will cooperate with the united states on the most important issues like countering trim, transboard crime, pier asy. we regulate regional conflicts. we are trying to counter the climate change effects. and we pay special attention to the international relationships regulation like the united nations. this is a good platform. it is universal and we work in the framework of g-8 and g-20

and we are going to continue this work and we are going to overcome the effects of global economic crisis as well, because we do not know what is the outlook. but there are various scenarios and soon we will be meeting each other in the form of g-8 and in the form of g-20. we are dealing with regional security issues and i would like to draw everyone's attention to the initiatives, which we came up with which is the european security treaty and this is an important thing. it is not aimed against any organization. this was not the reason behind it. this is not a trick made by russians against nato or o.s.c.

we are trying to add better tool to the security system. another issue on which we work quite extensively and we discussed it, maybe you will have some questions on that, the iranian nuclear issue. now a lot is being said about the need to impose sanctions on iran and the reasons for those sanctions are totally clear. iran still hasn't responded to the compromised suggestions. we are discussing these suggestions on sanctions with our colleagues in the six-party talks. last time we discussed this with president obama in prague when we saw each other to sign the new start treaty. it doesn't mean that sanctions are just a good and healthy thing and they don't always bring about the necessary results and certainly they should not punish the people. they should only prevent the

spread of nuclear weapons. in that case, they can be efficient. we are assisting afghanistan in their transition towards a stable and sustainable developing state. we are trying to assist them in assuring a peaceful life. we work together in the political area trying to ensure a political settlement. we are enforcing the local authorities assisting the police. we are working together on transit issues. i believe that all these is eventually contributing to a common result. so far, little is being done to stop the drug trafficking original naturing from afghanistan. maybe because america is less affected by these problems and russia and europe are suffering more. this is the drugs that go to our countries. and we should achieve a greater

progress on that. we have similar approaches on the meast settlement. we need to create necessary conditions to -- for the creation of an independent palestinian state. so far, we are facing a lot of difficulties. until then, we cannot expect a durable and sustainable peace in the middle east. so far, the united states is taking vigorous efforts to recover the constructive process , including through proximity talks. we totally support this idea and this year, i have met with almost all of the middle east leaders. i supported indirect faux. we hosted the meeting in moscow and i hope eventually it will lead to direct negotiations. any stop in the development always brings about lagging behind. that is why our country started

modernizing its economy and started the technological innovation introduction. so far, frankly, speaking, we haven't done that much. and frankly speaking, here, we would like to count on the partnership with leading economies throughout the world, including the u.s. economy and i was very happy with our discussion with president obama when we started discussing our agenda, not with the middle east and not with iran and not with the problem with start treaty, but we started our discussion with cooperation between our two countries and i believe that the truth be told, it is the area that most failed in our relationship. now we have recovered a dynamic development in these area. we have established a constructive relationship in a personal level between the presidents, but there are no economic result. so i would like to reiterate

that it would be a very useful thing, though business is business and it is governed by its own rules and cannot impose things on it, but we could create conditions conducive to its development. i have quoted a saying by the founder of this institution, mr. brookings, and it would be wrong should i not quote about the incumbent u.s. president when he was addressing a meeting in russia. he said that america needs a powerful peaceful and prosperous russia. those are good words. but russia, in turn, also needs a responsible peaceful, recognized and din milk-developing america, america that enjoys the respect of the entire international community that develops partnership with other countries on an equal

footing and that develops its position towards the development of a new system of international relations. that would be a great thing to achieve. at this point, i would like to finish my remarks. and now we can start the more interesting part of this meeting in the question and answer session. if you don't mind, i will stay here to take your questions. >> thank you so much. we will in a few minutes open the conversation to include our friends here in the audience. but perhaps i could get the conversation going a little bit between the two of us by asking you to follow up a bit on two issues, and they both boil down to one question, which is what next? what next for the negotiations between russian federation and the united states on nuclear and

other arms now that you have the new start treaty done, awaiting ratification, of course, on both sides? and what next by way of follow up on what you have described as a very successful nuclear safety summit here in washington? [russian translator] >> frankly speaking, i really hope that more work will be done, more work will follow. speaking about the outcomes of the summit, i hope we will not just go home feeling happy. as for the start treaty, i would like to see one legal effect after that, the ratification of the treaty and if it does take place, it means that president obama and i did not work in vain. and should there be no ratification, it will mean we have gone back to some soviet

times when these treaties were not ratified. but on the other hand, it would be very important in my mind that our relationship should not be reduced to nuclear cooperation or choose the limitation of strategic arms, although it is something that people expect of us. and in this regard, we have assumed a great responsibility towards the international community. i would like us to have a much broader cooperation on all the other areas. as to the future of the treaty and our further steps, i would like us to undertake all the necessary procedures provided for in the treaty. i would like the treaty to be transparent. i would like it to be acceptable to both societies in russia and the united states. i hope it will not cause any tensions.

and i hope it will help us to build on our future cooperation, though, frankly speaking, besides strategic arms, there are other arms that are quite dangerous as well that also require an agreement between us, that require a discussion between us, because there are conventional forces that can cause a traumatic damage. and on such systems, we haven't yet coordinated our position as to what to do next. there are issues on which we should formulate a common position, like nuclear terrorism, like nonproliferation, like control overstates that are threshold countries and that are trying to use all the ways to sneak into the nuclear club. this is our joint responsibility and i would like us to work on that together.

>> thank you very much. i suspect maybe some of our colleagues will want to return to these issues, but if i could ask you one question about russia and the global economy, and that is, what you see as the prospects for russia being part of the world trade organization. [russian translator] >> being honest, i think that we should have be in the w.t.o. long time ago, because we have been on the threshold longer than any other country ever since big countries, china. and being honest, i think russia's is publicized highly. it has become a carrot before us. they keep saying, behave well and we will accept you to the w.t.o. but this is not correct, because if we assess the organization,

everyone will benefit, not only russia. it is a very important part of international economy. whatever people say, we have a lot of things to offer and harmo niization of the rules we use. we would like to have the ability w.t.o. and we should make this procedure not humiliating for us. and i will be frank, i know that barack obama will not be offended. he said that russia should join w.t.o. we started the process in 2006 when our relationship was just evolving. but there is nol result yet and we count very much on a favorable position of the new administration to force the

joining of russia to the w.t.o. this does not run counter to our commitments like our customs union with belarussia. all the processes can be harmonized and benefit from it. >> i'm going to invite the audience to put some questions top president medvedev. and i would ask you to be sure that they are questions and that you identify yourself when you stand up to ask. we have microphones around the room. i'll start with ambassador rick burke.

>> i listened to the answer you gave about what's next and you outlined a number of areas that the united states and the russian federation could work on , european security, conventional forces, proliferation. does that suggest -- does your answer suggest that a new round of further reductions in nuclear forces is not a russian priority, a new round of negotiations following the start treaty and hopefully its ratification is not a russian priority or would you support a followup negotiation to achieve deeper cuts? [russian translator] >> i would like to say that this is an important priority for russia as well as for the united states. ratification is a process that

should be addressed by all of us together by each country and we have agreed with mr. obama that ratification will be simultaneous. not to make everyone -- not to put anyone in an awkward situation talking about further reduction of strategic potential. this is our aim in general. there is no doubt about this. and today at the summit, i said that the idea of global zero to date is not an illusion, but we should be honest with each other talking about responsibility about the situation on the planet. this is not only russia and america's responsibility, though we have biggest part of armaments. if people will arrive at global zero, that should be a collective effort and i will not

point the finger at anyone. but we have partners who are less willing to cut their potentials than russia or america. and we have to convince them to go that way. but talking about the further process talks, we are ready for that and we are going to engage in this. this is natural. but today, we have made a threshold since feeling for the next 10 years and this is enough now. and if there is a need, then we will discuss the new levels. but these 10 years will be peaceful for us as long as we sign this treaty and if the thing -- the preamble, it says about the length between the treaty and strategic arms issue. we have been discussing it for

long and we have created this formula that the partners acknowledge this link and also we have worked out a principle or a statement that the treaty will be in effect as long as the development of a.b.m. or other arms development will not contradict the principles of this treaty. and this is a sensitive moment, as president obama, i'm optimistic about this and we hope we will not stop the treaty or withdraw from it. having some problems about a.b.m. or other issues. but everything depends on us and other politicians who will treat this issue later on. >> you have your delegation and perhaps he could coordinate with his america counterpart, senator

kerry, on the two ratification processes. [russian translator] >> would you like to make a question? now you have this opportunity. >> would you -- you have been invited by your president to -- [russian translator] >> thank you. mr. president, next week we will be discussing with the senate this simultaneous issue and the thing that is being asked by all counterparts, when will the russian president submit this document to the russian parallelment? when will the american president do it? the first week of may? then we will do the same thing

right then. we can do that as a package deal, like two packages. in the morning, i make a call to mr. obama and ask him, are you doing it. and i do the same thing. i sign the package right there. >> perhaps you could give him some advice on how to synchronize our own legislative branch. >> we have a problem. it's called the united states senate. but if i could -- >> congressman delahunt. >> congratulations on signing the treaty and many of us hope that the senate proceed to ratification. i do have a question and you referenced the economic

relationship between the united states and russia. and recently, we had a visit from the state duma delegation. and that issue did arise. and we all agree that the level of commerce between the united states and russia is unacceptable. it is abysmally low. we have ideas on the house side as to how we would like the russians to make some adjustments. but if you had a wish list of what you would like to see coming sfr the administration -- from the administration and congress in terms of initiatives economically, what would they be? [russian translator] >> well, the question is how many wishes can be fulfilled?

for example, there are wishes that are never to come true. that we aren't even mentioning anymore, because they are impossible ones. they are wishes impossible toll fulfill, such as the withdrawal of the amendment. it is such a complicated thing that even in terms of this audience, i'm not speaking about it. well, seriously speaking, we need to review our current economic relationship. before the crisis, our bilateral trade was around $25 billion, 30 billion. that isn't that much taken the size of the american and russian economy. frankly speaking, the volume of trade between russia and the e.u. is $250 billion. the trade between the russian federation and peoples republic

of china is smaller now, but still, it is 2 1/2 times bigger than that of the united states. but it is not only about the volume of trade, but about the investment as well. as far as the investment is concerned, the situation is not that good, but at least it's a parity situation. we often use this word. the volume of the u.s. investment in the russian economy is around $7 billion. this is nothing. it's a zero. the volume of the russians' investments in the u.s. economy is $6 billion. this is a little bigger than with other countries. but after all, it's not that much. anyways, the volume of the dutch investment in the u.s. economy is $150 billion. this is the difference in the

balances. it doesn't mean that we will be able to bridge this gap very soon, but anyway, mutual investments bring countries much closer together and they fulfill development. most importantly, there should be understanding between investors and the state should see these investments positively as well. it is about creating favorable regimes for such investments and internal -- about a favorable treatment to such foreign investment. in our country, the development climate is not the best possible and we should do everything to make it more attractive. it doesn't mean that things are so perfect in the united states, but there are things we need to do in order to improve the climate and its elements, including some economic regimes that could be used, including

the situation with the legal system. we can improve the functioning of our courts. we could combat corruption. those are the barriers to trade and investment, and not only from the united states. we see these problems. and most importantly, our partners should see their own problems as well, including those problems that impede russian investments or the implementation of joint projects in third countries. >> i want to ask if it's true what i call the retirement of jackson-vanik is an impossible wish? >> i do not believe it is impossible and i think there is sentiment in congress today to address the issue. you are probably unaware, but there has been the formation in the house of a russian caucus and it's an issue that is being discussed and discussed

seriously. >> toby? >> there was a great outpouring in the united states of unity after the terrible terrorist acts and this is due to the contacts that has been made between the americans and russians in the past 20 years. in your first comments about this attack, you said that russia had to deal with terrorism very harshly, but also respect human rights and the rule of law. but we have heard about the first and very little about the latter. and there was a tightening up in the political system. you have talked for many months about the reform of the security structures and the judicial system and maybe it's even more necessary now. my question is, how do you convince society and other people in your government that

part of the fight against terrorism is respect for human rights and for all of russian citizens? and how do you hope to avoid the overreactions that have taken place in other societies after terrorist acts? [russian translator] >> well, you have touched upon a hard issue. it's not always that this society requires that human rights be respected in the wake of a terrorist attack. as a rule, the society requires that criminals be punished and in a most serious way especially for terrorists and only some secondary voices speak to the human rights. and this is something typical, not only for russia. this is not only a tradeoff of

the civil society in russia, this happens in all the countries in the wake of terrorist attacks. the people demand retall yation. but in the -- retaliation. and in the 21st century, we understand in case of such attacks, a full flidged investigation should take place and should involve all the parties concerned that are in charge of such issues in a country and the final decision, the final ruling should be made by the court. but there is a gap between the public sentiment and position of law enforcement and judicial system. and this is an actual problem that we cannot turn a blind eye on. besides, it is necessary to establish a climate of understanding not only inside our society, but also understanding between the russian society and american society, between the russian

political establishment and the u.s. political establishment. i'm referring to the following. we need to use the same scale to each other after the perptration of the latest savage terrorist attacks on the russian metro. the reaction of the entire world was son -- consolidated and correct. nevertheless, in some cases, we still see old stereotypes are used that are insulting to russia, including these cases are seen in the united states. i reviewed the press after the attacks and terrorists were still called rebels. we cannot accept that. it is unacceptable to us. i believe it is insult the memory of those who died in the subway station. this is a small detail that is

quite indicative on such issues. we should be much closer together. we should hear each other better and then we will be more successful in overcoming the consequences of such terrorist attacks, speaking about the great solid dart of the russian people towards the u.s. people in 2001. this was quite high and we should learn to use the same scale while evaluating each other's situations. and we should be show it to each other in many events, even such tragic ones as the death of president kaczynski and a great part of the polish political elite. >> thank you, director of norn

policy at brookings. -- foreign policy at brookings. and thank you for your wise and constructive leadership of russia. my question is about iran. i wonder if you could describe for us how you view russia's nuclear program. is it a threat to russian national security interests? are you concerned it triggering a nuclear arms race in the middle east and now that you and president obama are on the same page when it comes to sanctions, are you on the same page with him when he says that force should be an option that's kept on the table? [russian translator for president medvedev] >> the talks about iran with mr.

obama and my other colleagues are a part of our agenda. we do that regularly and on a full basis. this means that iran is a problem. and what is important that we find evidence of what their nuclear program is, as any society. they do have the right to develop the civilian nuclear program. but the problem is how they convince us of the community that it is and lately we did not bring any improvement to the situation. it has aggravated. and iran ignores the questions addressed to it. they keep saying small phrases

and make small suggestions. so we deal this together, talking about the future. i would not favor sanctions because sanctions is impeasing of some actions. but if nothing happens, we will have to deal with sanctions. the question is what kind of sanction are these. many times i have answered this question, what kind of sanctions we need. i do not favor penalizing crippling sanctions. make people suffer in a humanitarian sense. this is immoral and it creates negative results, negative feedback and i have grounds to believe that some people need right this. they are waiting for a real clash of positions. but sanctions must be

intelligent. and the question is how we understand this word, what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. sanctions must be universal. they must be discussed with the main participants of the international process on this question. and the sanctions must be aimed at one result. that's why the position upon the sanction depends not only on the united states, europe, russia, but also on china, latin america. in this case only, these decisions, if it is needed are able to get results. and talking about middle east and what can happen over there if the nuclear program is implemented. and a nuclear conflict arises.

well, that would be a gigantic catastrophe. we all can't imagine what could happen in the middle east if just one terrorist act happens there or nuclear arms is used. middle east is called middle east because it is so small it is enough for bombings to happen in one place, for it to start spreading all over the world. and that would trigger a humanitarian catastrophe and exodus of people from different countries. and the most bad thing is it will trigger the nuclear arms race. many colleagues from iran will -- arabic world that if iran gets nuclear arms, they will have no scrupeles without having

it as well. and this will enlarge the nuclear club and then no summit will help if all of those countries have nuclear arms. that will open a new page in the history of humankind, which will be very sad. and i hope we will be able to agree and will manage to solve this issue by political -- >> mr. president, i really want to thank you for being here. i come from that generation of american people that were involved in the second world war and we certainly had great pride when we went into great britain and france. but i don't think we really thanked the russians enough for the fact being on the east coast and having 25 divisions and i

think it made a lot of difference. what i want to do is thank you and the russian people for that. the question i'm going to ask you is the same question i wanted to ask general petraeus today when he spoke at lunch time. and that was asked, the military decided that we had to go into afghanistan. what would have happened if we, the military, had said to the russians, will you join us, because after all, you had a big battle there and you still have problems there. [russian translator for president medvedev] >> if i understood you rightly, you are talking about military presence of russia in such operations, do i get you right? >> joining the united states in

military and its allies in the military operations in afghanistan. [russian translator for president medvedev] >> every country has their own history and times it is very sad. our country has a history of work in afghanistan back in soviet times and that was a very hard page of our history. and i'm not sure that our society is ready to once again open the page. but that doesn't mean that we would like to stay on the side lines and agree upon all questions of cooperation in afghanistan, starting with military, transit, military, social and economic projects, restoring of its economy. we should cooperate in this realm, but what is more today is

given an opportunity to the afghanistan political system develop because we understand that america cannot be there all the time. it cannot be lasting forever. it's a very hard burden. but if america leaves afghanistan and the alliance leaves, then how will the political system live in afghanistan? . .

current situation? >> the situation in kyrgyzstan is difficult, once again. it's living through a stage of a legitimate development and unfortunately, i believe that responsibility for that is borne by the authorities in kyrgyzstan themselves who hadn't taken effort earlier to consolidate the civil society to agree with the opposition to settle the numerous conflicts under way and to organize

normal economic development once the former president was outcast by the opposition and he was forced to leave the country and one of the reproaches he received was economic crimes, corruption, a couple of years later we see the same thing slow -- the same slogans and same people there only they switched places. which is quite sad because kyrgyzstan is a close neighbor of ours and least of all we would like to see kyrgyzstan turning into a failed state. the risk of kyrgyzstan falling into two parts, the northern and the southern part, is still there and it is important to prevent bloodshed. around 100 people have been killed already and now the question is not about who started the whole thing, though

certainly an investigation should be held to see who triggered all those problems. the most important thing is to prevent a civil war now and i believe kyrgyzstan is on the verge of a civil war now and all the forces in kyrgyzstan should realize their responsibility toward the nation and the people in kyrgyzstan and to the future of that state. we ourselves understand perfectly what a civil war means today if, god forbid, it is started. it will immediately attract terrorists and extremists of all tinds because in the course of such conflicts, the best possible conditions are created for radical movements and in this people, instead of kyrgyzstan, and afghanistan, of some years ago can emerge a

different afghanistan before the military operations there. our task is to help our partners there to find the calmest possible way to overcome this situation. how can we do that? we need to soothe down the people, we should form a government that would be viable , and some political leaders will need to assume important decisions as to their future. a decision that should be motivated by the interest of the people of kyrgyzstan, not by their personal political ambitions. >> mr. president, i'm darrell west, vice president of government study here's at brookings. i was interested in your talk in the section about technology

and how that broadens your source of information and i'm just curious how technology has changed our leadership style, and when you go online, what are you looking for and also do you and president obama ever email one another? >> we don't email each other with president obama, but it is a good idea. indeed that would be the fastest possible way to talk to each other because until we coordinate our communications with our assistants, then we get communications in writing, it takes a lot of time. in this case, we could just have a couple of iphones and just exchange text messages or emails. i am quite familiar with that as well as president obama, as far as i understand. but speaking about the changes that occurred in my life through this new information

environment, i should say that a lot of things have changed. it's not a figure of speech. this is about our habits and habits are the things we're made of. if some time ago i started my morning with reading a newspaper or a digest or just watching the tv, i don't do that anymore. i go online and i find all the things there, newspapers, tv channels, russian media, foreign media. media that are favorable to the russian president, media that hate the russian president and they certainly speak whatever they think, which is very important because i don't have a perfect picture of what is going on. the picture that many predecessors of mine and in other countries used to have.

this gives an opposite effect. very often, i review some requests or comments of desperate people who write about corruption, law violations, about other problems. i certainly cannot answer all those comments, but the most outstanding things, due to internet, can trigger support from people and then a whole open letters written by many people at the same time and this is certainly a reason for a feedback from me and then i instruct my agencies and ministries and the government to attend to that. originally it caused some kind of surprise but now people are used to that, moreover, i have started a blog that is run at

my presidential website. now governors have started doing this as well. for somebody is a totally formal thing. others, really communicate with people and if earlier officials were threatened by some addresses to their bosses, to the kremlin, now they are threatened by such comments that people can write on the president's website, this is becoming a part of our life. it cannot help us in all the thing in all the problems, but it is certainly helpful and in our society in russia, it is probably even more important than anywhere else. in our society, this bureaucratic traditions have ages-long history and always

authorities have been too far from the people and probably it originated some political traditions as well and this type of communications helps us redress this kind of bad traditions. and i like this. >> i don't know if it's going to be possible to have simultaneous ratification of the new star treaty in our senate and your parliament, but i'm sure your opening proposal about how you and president obama are going to communicate is going to cause a simultaneous nervous breakdown in the white house and the kremlin. but i'm sure you're up to handling that. >> no problem. >> antoine fanachwal, i would like to switch to the economy. two questions, looking back and looking forward. looking back, after the global crisis, russia was hit by a --

quite a steep and fast economic recession. did that surprise you? also, how fast russia bounced out of it. second question, russia is well known to be -- to have the largest reserves of gas in the world. is that changing now that so much gas, i mean, huge quantities of gas are being found in the united states, hungary, all over the world, how will that change relations with europe and even china? >> speaking about the global recession, if i was surprised, i will be frank. well, i was surprised. every one of us have their own stereotypes, their own understanding of what are the weak places of economy and what are not.

so the thing that happened after the crisis, the beginning of the crisis in our country, was a surprise because the extent to which it fell was more than i could have expected. i'm not talking about other economies. i talked to my european counterparts and american counterparts. all of them were surprise. but that was outrageous -- were surprised. but that was outrageous for me. how our economy depends on raw materials. i never understood that we are so much dependent on raw materials and this made me talk about the modernization, about technology. but for the crisis, probably we would live by our eninertia and

living with the high prices on oil and gas. i'm happy that this crisis happened. the economy has fallen down, but it is bad that this crisis made people suffer, many people lost their jobs, it hit people very hard. but this crisis should change our mindset, our economic approach and thus far it hasn't changed much. many businesspeople and ordinary people are waiting for high oil prices, it's $85 a barrel now. it's ok now. maybe it will be $140 someday, then we can rest easy doing nothing, but the problem is

that this is top-down development and one day, the price will fall and the prices will harr monoize somehow and being -- arm onize somehow and bling -- harm onize somehow. -- harmonize somehow. the major challenge is how fast we can do that, we would like to do it as fast as possible, but this is difficult. we have outlined five priorities of economic reforms not because they are universal but because they are important and if we are successful in these ones, like space, atomic energy, pharmaceutical drugs, energy efficiency, new technologies in energy, we will

have some advancement in these realms, then it will be very good. though high prices for energy carriers is good, why not go and lower them. it gives us some advantage. the main thing is not to rely on gas and oil only. and the fact that they have found new gas opportunities, this is not bad. that will help us be more attentive toward our possibilities. our opportunities. and whatever we say, once 50 years and energy revolution happens, first coal, then oil, then gas, then nuclear power and i believe that in 30 to 50 years from now the situation in

both our countries will be different. i don't know if we'll use hydrogenic power, but being complacent with gas and oil is not good today. >> i want to tie this question onto that one. you mentioned the brick countries in your opening remarks and you meet from time to time and are going to be meeting shortly with your fellow leaders in that grouping. when you get together with them cork you talk about these issues and compare perspectives and plans? and what do you see as the future of that grouping? >> i not only speak to them, after this meeting, i'm going to latin america where the brick summit will be held in brazil and this group, this community of countries today,

is formed already. this doesn't mean that this is full-fledged organization, but that doesn't mean these are four countries developing at a fast pace and if we are able to find consolidated approaches, we can do that on many questions, not on all of them, but the things we discuss like economy and politics is very important and today, brick has become a factor of economic development. does that mean that this is a community having an eternal shape and it is rigid? i don't think. so but in order to change it, we have to reach common approach. we have to agree. last year, when we met each

other and discussed these issues in russia, with all of the statesmen of brick we discussed national measures and economic development. this is very good for us and the outlook of our society is positive and we're going to develop this structure. >> this will be the last question. >> this is probably the first brookings event at which two questions about kyrgyzstan have been asked. this is number two. since the -- >> the dirg stan nation will be happy. >> some analysts, including in

russia have noted how critical russia was of him. and said that russia was angry that kyrgyzstan had not kicked the americans out of the base. can you clarify this? can you say that russia has no objection to american access to the base in kyrgyzstan, to support our operations in afghanistan? >> how can russia even object against sovereign decisions made by other states? this is their decision, we can either like it or not, but it's a decision made by the leadership in kyrgyzstan. the president there is a

coherent person he first said he was going to make a decision to eliminate the american base in kyrgyzstan and then he made the very same coherent decision to maintain the center for transit movement. i believe that coherency and consistency is always the best characteristic of a politician. the more coherent a person is, the better his results are and we can see the results of the incumbent president of kyrgyzstan now. it doesn't mean, though, that we in some way are trying to impede that. on the contrary, when i met the president, i always told him it is necessary to assist our u.s. partners in addressing the tasks in afghanistan. the other question is, how effective this assistance is. therefore, all the possibilities were there.

>> mr. president, before i say a few words of thanks to you, i want to ask our friends in the audience to please remain seated after we have concluded the program so that i can escort president medvedev out of the building. to you, sir, i would just like to express particular appreciation not just for the substance of what you have said, which was remarkable in its breadth and depth and in its candor. but also the spirit that you brought to this discussion. you opened your remarks, first of all by quoting our founder, robert s. brookings he would be very proud indeed to have his name associated with this event today. you also said some kind words

about the summit that president obama hosted, i'm sure you've had a chance to express those to him. obviously that meeting set a very high standard a very unusual standard. but you've cone the same thing here with this discussion. and i can sense, i know enough people around the room, i know the body english and the body russian, to have a pretty high degree of confidence that we all are in your debt for spending this much time with us and covering as much ground as you did. i ask all of you to please join me in thanking president medvedev. [applause] >> i would like to say a few words more. first of all, i would like to thank you for being so patient to listen to my long answers. secondly, indeed, two questions

about kyrgyzstan were asked today, which is quite unusual. on the other hand, i didn't hear the questions that i always like and appreciate and that i am always asked, like the question about the development of our political system, the development of our media, our relationship with mr. putin. i haven't heard none of those questions today and i believe that is a reason for me to come back and discuss again our domestic political life as well. [applause] >> i have a very simple proposal. since you've already given nervous breakdown to your staff, why don't we give them another and just have everybody stick around for another hour and we'll discuss all of those issues. >> no. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> we be prepared to commit that a republican president and a republican congress in february and march of 2013, will repeal every radical bill passed by this machine. >> miss one of the speaker's of this year's southern republican leadership conference? at the new c-span video library, you can search it, watch it, clip it, and share

it. over 160,000 hours of video, from last week or last year. every c-span program since 1987. the c-span video library, cable's latest gift to america. >> this year's c-span studentcam competition asked middle and high school students to create a five to eight-minute video dealing with one of our country's great etc. strengths or a challenge the country is facing. here's one of the third place winners. >> out of all the industrialized first-world country arnsd the globe, the united states is the only country that doesn't have a universal health care system. on christmas eve, the senate passed a health care bill, a corrupt product of failed negotiation between the democrat and republican parties that wouldn't provide the same coverage the original bill promised. >> is it ethical to only

provide coverage to those who can afford to spend what would cost you an arm and a leg. >> in this video, we're voicing our opinions. us. the next generation of americans. in an effort to make some changes in a seriously flawed system. >> on september 9, president obama gave a speech to a joint session of congress and to the nation of more critical necessity that is health care reform. it seemed the majority of the nation knew now that the world's greatest superpower needed to have an efficient or at least ethical system for treating americans for their medical needs. >> i'm one of probably 40,000 people in this -- in the san francisco area who don't have health insurance. that's why this issue is so important to me. if i get sick if something bad

happens to me, i don't have any insurance to cover me. i also, if i want to go visit a doctor, i have to pay full price. so it doesn't matter to anybody -- this getting affordable health care and passing the public option doesn't matter to anybody more than it does to me. >> the world health organization recently rated the united states 37th out of a list of countries in our health care system despite the fact that we spend the most in the world for health care. as of 2008, 43.6 million americans were uninsured and with america's economic crisis, those who were insured had seen their premiums skyrocket. americans with pre-existing conditions can still be denied medical preement by their insurers or can can dropped from plans altogether. >> individually i have a health plan through my partner's work, he's a nurse, it's an excellent plan. however that's a rarity, i think, among insurance

policies. most people think they have insurance. there's 55 million people who don't have insurance. there's another probably 20 million to 40 million who are underinsured but the reaility is you don't know you have bad insurance until you get sick. >> many uninsured americans avoid making doctor visits as they cannot afford them. as a result, many serious problems that could have been avoided with preventive treatment get progressively worse. eventually forcing people to go to the emergency room, the most expensive place to see a dr. as a result the extra costs must be absorbed by others in the form of higher premiums and deductibles. >> no, i don't think the current system works. that's why i'm so supportive of president obama's efforts to reform the current system. i think in particular, whether or not there's a public option, and i think there are probably different ways of defining

that, i don't think it's that simple. simply a public option versus no public option. i think there's gray areas in between. whether or not you have that, fundamental reforms like eliminating discrimination on the basis of pre-existing conditions, those are huge fundamental reforms of health care financing, of insurance, and of the overall system. >> for the selfish reason of their own financial longevity, many of the private insurance companies have been propagating lies about the public option in an effort to turn the public against it. ey mak the claim there will be so-called death panels on which, for example, bureaucrats will deny life-sustaining treatments to the elderly. this is no more than a scare tactic. nothing even remotely close to a death panel has been suggested in any of the proposed health care bills.

>> one of the things about the public option that's a myth is that the government is going to take over your health care. the thing that the public option is, what the public option is, is if you have a private insurer cover you, you can keep it and if you want to switch, you can switch to another private insurer. but with the public option, all you have is another option. it's not the government taking over your health care. so the biggest misconception i hear about the public omings is that the government's taking over health care. that it's single payer. or that it's in any way a radical change to what you already have. >> some also claim the public option would be a gateway measure leading to socialism. by definition it would offer consumers another alternative on the free market. others argue that the public option would raise insurance premiums rather than lower them. but if this is true, then it would surely fail and

berejected in the marketplace as being clearly inferior to the private options and everything would eventually return to the way it is now. >> we desperately need reform. it's broken in all kinds of ways, but it's broken in that we have a lot of people uninsured and that's just a moral outrage. it's also broken in the escalating costs for people and it's also, i think, sort of broken in the great amount of lack of security that people have regarding their insurance if they lose their job, they lose their insurance. if they have certain conditions that are not -- they're not sure whether those conditions will be covered. >> there are still many people around the country who don't or won't accept the public option as a viable solution to solving our health care crisis. >> our relatives in canada know how bad socialized medicine is. my aunt had breast cancer, she was treated. her husband had prostate

cancer, they let him die. it's luck of the draw, randomized, sometimes you will not get treated for cancer because they don't want to spend the money. if you have really bad luck, like my uncle, they let him die. >> the private health insurance companies act with the same prerogative as any other corporation, to make a profit. it's not with the american people's best interest in mind. it's just not in their nature as a company to do that. it's the basis of capitalism to do what they do they have a product and they market it. it only becomes immoral when there are no other options for americans to choose. and that's just what the public option is. it's a choice. >> i support the public option. >> my name is joshua, i support the public option.

>> my name is erin and i support a public option. >> my name is camilla, i'm for the public option. >> i'm geena, i support the public option. >> we support public option. >> my name is pete incorporated, i do support the public option. >> my name is vespa, i support the public option. >> my name is nadia, i would like to know more about universal health care. >> to see all of the winning entries in this year's studentcam competition, visit studentcam.org. gentleman from new jersey seek

recognition? >> i rise to address the house for a minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> it is with deep regret that i inform the house of the passing of our former member, robert dr. franks of new jersey. bob franks died late friday at memorial sloan kettering in manhattan at the age of 58. his distinguished career of public service included membership in the new jersey general assembly, where we were

colleagues, chairman of the state republican party, and from 1992 until 2000, as a member of congress from new jersey's seventh congressional district, where he was succeeded by mike ferguson. in this decade, bob has served extremely abeably as the president of the health care institute of new jersey. a graduate of duh paul university and southern methodist university law school in dallas, he's survived by his wonderful wife fran and their beautiful daughters, carrie, sara, and abigail. a devoted friend, colleague, and mentor to me, bob's passing at such a young age is particularly poignant, but his shining example as a public servant will burn brightly for decades and serve as an example to us all. i respectfully ask that the house rise for a moment of

silence in memory of bob franks. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> if the gentleman would yield? >> i do. >> bob franks was a great friend. we served on opposite sides but he was a gentleman a professional in every sense of the word. we're going to miss him. his beautiful wife and three young children will miss him and the state of new jersey will miss him this body was made better when bob franks walked through this chamber and served on major committees and contributed to the security of this nation. may he rest in peace and may we remember what he stood for as a model of civility and bipartisanship. god bless him. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition?

>> i also ask unanimous consent to speak for a minute to honor former congressman stan rarries who pass aid way march 27. he represented the eighth district of virginia in the house from 1973 to 1974 and then again throughout the 1980's, from 1981 to 1990. he was a very hardworking advocate for northern virginians, he was a fighter pilot a veteran of the korean war, he earned the distinguished flying cross and the purple heart for his service. he was known for give ought his home phone number and listening to people regardless of their views. i'm not sure his successor has given out his home phone number as often but mr. parris supported flood control projects and bridge he put car pool lanes on interstate 395 and transferred control to the the airports from the federal

aviation administration, he made an effort to move the prison, he got the national football league to change its policy on blacking out games he proved pressure yent in warning about the looming savings and loan crisis in the 1980. he graduated from george washington university, he owned several car dealerships and he's survived by his wife of 28 years, martha, his three children and his two grandchildren. now i'd like to recognize my colleague, the dean of the virginia delegation, congressman frank woeful. mr. woeful: madam speaker,s that sad o-- mr. weavel: -- mr. wolf: madam speaker, this

is a sad day. i had the privilege of serving for 10 years of his 12 years. he had many legislative accomplishment the people in northern west virginia, including to what my colleague, mr. moran, said, i think many would agree one of the most significant was to transfer dulles international airport from the f.a.a. to the regional airport authority which eventually led to two of the finest airports in the region. he was not only an outstanding member of congress but a korean war hero. someone said if you wanted to understand stan parrish, read the back "the right stuff." he was a pilot, he'd been shot down in the korean war, his airplane landed on power lines and was rescued in north korea, received a distinguished flying cross. the purple heart, and the air medal. was also a state legislator and local legislator and attorney.

he recently made his home in matthews, virginia, with his wife marty and to marty and their three children and two grandchildren, we express our deepest sympathies. funeral services for stan will be held in late june with a burial at arlington national cemetery. i ask unanimous consent to insert the following obituary in the record and say he was a good member of congress and he love this is institution as much as anybody i ever met. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: perhaps now -- >> perhaps now we could have a few moments of silence for both departed colleagues. the speaker pro tempore: the house will observe a moment of silence for our two former colleagues from new jersey and virginia.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentlewoman from california to suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 1041 on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the titetheefl resolution. the clerk: house resolution 1041, resolution congratulating congratulating and commending the university of idaho's football team for winning the 2009 humanitarian bowl in boise, idaho. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and agree to the resolution? members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, there are 394 yeas, one nay and two recorded as present. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to. and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the table. the house will be in order. the house will be in order. does the gentleman from west

virginia seek recognition? mr. rahall: yes, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does? mr. rahall: it was one week and one day ago that a devastating blast in a coal mine -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. rahall: one week and one day ago that a devastating blast in a coal mine outside of my home town took the lives of coal miners, one more is hanging on in the hospital. i ask that we have a silent prayer for those who have lost their lives in the tragedy. the speaker pro tempore: the house will observe a moment of silence in respect of those victimized by the tragedy in west virginia. the speaker pro tempore: without

objection, five-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the the gentlewoman from california, ms. chu to suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 1042 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 1042, resolution commending the boise state university broncos football team for winning the 2010 fiesta bowl. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and agree to the resolution. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 385, the nays are one and three are recorded as present. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to. and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from terise? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a co-sponsor of h.r. 413.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable, the speaker, house of representatives, madam, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, i have the honor to transmital sealed envelope received from the white house on tuesday, april 13, 2010 at 3:24 p.m. and said to contain a message from the president whereby he submits to the congress a copy of an executive order with an annex attached with respect to somalia. signed sincerely, lorraine c. miller, clerk of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will read the message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states, consistent with subsection 204-b of the

international emergency economic powers act, 50 u.s.c. 1703-b and section 301, 50 u.s.c. 1631, i have issued an executive order, the order blocking the property of certain persons contributing to the conflict in somalia. in that order i declared a national emergency to deal with the ununusual and extraordinary threats of national security posed by that conflict as described below. united nations -- the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will suspend. the house will be in order, please. the clerk will proceed. the clerk: united nations security council in resolution 1844 of november 20, 2008, reafffirmed its condemnation of all acts of violence in somalia and incitement to violence inside somalia and expressed its concerns to blockal peaceful

process. resolution 1844 expressed grave concern over the recent acts of piracy and armed robbery at sea of vessels off the coast of somalia and the role of piracy may play imposed by 1733 of january 23, 1992. in u.n. 1944, united nations security council determined that the situation in somalia poses a threat to international peace and security in the region and called on member states to apply certain measures against persons responsible for the continuing conflict. the united nations security council has continued to express grave concern about the crisis in somalia in 1846 of december 2, 2008, u.n.c.r. and u.n.c.r.

1722. pursuant to the ieppa and i have determined the deterioration of the security situation and the persistence of violence in somalia and armed robbery at sea off the coast of somalia constitute an extraordinary threat to national security and foreign policy of the united states. the order declares a national emergency to deal with this threat. the order is not targeted at the entire country of somalia, but rather is intended to target those who threaten peace and stability in somalia, inhibit the delivery of huh man tarian assistance in somalia or who supply arms or material in violation of the arms embargo. the order blocks the property and interests and property in the united states or in the possession or control of the united states' persons of the persons listed in the order as well as of any person determined

by the secretary of the treasury in consultation with the secretary of state to have engaged in acts that directly or indirectly threaten the peace, security or stability of somalia, including, but not limited to, one, acts that threaten the agreement of august 18, 2008 or the political process or two, acts that threaten the transitional federal institutions, the african union mission in so mall kwla or other international peace keeping operations in somalia, to have obstructed the deliver of of humanitarian assistance in somalia or to have directly or indirectly supplied, sold or transferred to somalia or have been the recipient in the territory of somalia of arms or anything -- or any related material or any technical advice, training or assistance,

including financing and financial assistance related to military activities. it will be applied in accordance with applicable federal law. the designation criteria will also be applied, taking into consideration the arms embardot in -- embargo in somalia of january 23, 1992, as elaborated upon and amended by subsequent resolutions. the order has also -- the order also authorizes the secretary of the treasury in consultation with the secretary of the senate for designation for blocking any person determined to have materially assisted, sponsored, or providing financial, material, logistical support for or goods or services in support of the activities described above or any person whose property and interests in property are

blocked pursuant to the order. i determine that among other threats to the peace and security of poso malia, acts of piracy or armed robbery at sea threaten the peace and security of somalia. i further authorize the secretary of the treasury in consultation with the secretary of the senate for blocking any person defined as an individual or entity determined to be owned or controlled by or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property or interests in property are blocked pursuant to the order. i dell gated to -- delegated to the secretary of the rshry in consultation with the secretary of state to take such actions and to employ all powers granted by the president by ieepa and the united states

participation act as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of the order. all agencies are directed to take all appropriate measures to carry out the provisions of the order. the order, a copy of which is enclosed, became effective at 12:01 a.m., eastern daylight time, on april 13, 2010. signed, barack obama, the white house. the speaker pro tempore: ordered to the committee of foreign affairs and ordered printed. the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> madam speaker, i stand here today to join my polish american constituents, the polish nation and the world in mourning those who perished in this weekend's tragic plane crashes. the crash that killed president-elect ka shinskey of poland, his first -- ka chinssee of -- ka chinskey of

poland was described as literally a nation colliding with its past. poland is and has been a true friend and ally of the united states. our two nations recently celebrated 90 years of diplomatic relations. the contributions of polish americans to the united states are numerous. from the families who lost loved ones in the plane crash, to the nation of poland and to chicago's own shaken polish-american community, this loss will be felt around the world for years to come. we will stand with our friends as they find the resilience to emerge stronger, as they have before, following this unimaginable tragedy. i look forward to poland's ke re-covery and re-emergence as a country that can and will overcome. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

ms. ros-lehtinen: i'm delighted to wish a happy birthday to my good friend tom oosterhuis. this thursday night, the 15th, he will be surrounded by many community activists from the keys to celebrate. tom will be turning 60, and he's done so much to improve the keys way of life. he's always a positive and energetic person, he's a wonderful part of keys life, he's the editor and publisher of a magazine for the florida keys. he covered a multitude of events going on every day in the keys, like the annual ernest hemingway look-alike contest, the harry truman symposium at the little white house. thanks for covering all the many positive folks who work every day to improve the daily problems keys residents face, the high cost of living, high uninsurance rate, but with your help work working together with

leaders like tom we can work to improve paradise every day. tom, i hope off great celebration, i wish i could be with your many friends and family members, you're an outstanding part of what makes the florida keys such an incredible place. congratulations. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> to a address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> flying the friendly skies for a commercial passenger is going to get worse. added to delays and fees for luggage, spirit airlines announced last week it will be the first to charge for carry on bags. i am introducing a bill to block spirit and any other airline from being able to impose this unfair and completely unnecessary carry-on tax. if spirit has its way this could cost every passenger up to $45 per item. such nickel and diming of the flying public has to stop.

america should know this tax would not pay for airport security or better infrastructure. 100% of it would be kept by the airlines. if you're a family with young children a senior who put yours medicine in a carry-on, this fee will hit you hardest. i urge my colleagues to co-sponsor this bill to discourage any airline from ever charging this. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> this past saturday, the people of poland suffer an unspeakable tragedy. the world lost a great leader with the death of polish president elect kaczynski. he was a staunch supporter of freedom and early in his life he was a fighter against communism. he was a member of the

solidarity movement in the 1970's. during martial law, he was jailed because the fwoth thought he was an anti-socialist element. when poland shed the yolk of communism, he served poland until his death he served as a member of parliament, as the mayor of warsaw, as a minister of justice and attorney general and finally as president of poland for the last five years. he was a true friend of america, madam speaker. he fought corruption because he believed it was an impediment to justice and freedom and we all mourn with the people of poland at the loss of this true polish patriot. may our great friend rest in peace. the speaker pro tempore: does anyone else seek recognition for one min speechs? for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: madam speaker, the states are fighting back and

saying no to the government's oprosive takeover of health care. 18 states, including texas, have joined in suing the government. never before in american history has have so many states banded together to claim a federal law is unconstitutional. the constitution does not permit the federal government to force citizens to buy a government ordained product like health insurance or face a penalty. the unconstitutional law also hires 16,000 more i.r.s. agents to rifle through the financial records of citizens to make sure they are buying that mandated government product. now isn't that lovely? madam speaker, the 10th amendment states in part, the powers not delegated to the united states are reserved to the states or to people. an objective reading of the constitution seems to indicate the states have a legitimate complaint. these 18 states should be commended for protecting their citizens from the federal government's unlawful,

unwarranted intrusion into the private lives of the citizens. that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> this past weekend, minnesota officially welcomed home 1,000 citizen soldiers who had been simbing in iraq. i ask congress to join me in saying thank you to the men and women of minnesota's national guard's 34th infantry division, also known as the red bulls. these brave service members were among the longest serving national guard units in all of iraq. they endured long deployments away from family and friends and even faced bureaucratic delays in receiving the bonus pay they had been promised and earned. an unacceptable mistake finally addressed in recent weeks. all the while they did what they always do. they fulfilled their mission to the very best of their abilities. the red bulls' accomplishments

have been vital to ensuring safety for iraqis and americans serving obviously behalf of a greatful station and a grateful nation, i say thank you for a job well done. >> for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and rhett rith my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: weather. mr. burton: a lot of people thought the health care bill was a move toward socialism, toward a government takeover of the health care industry. we went ahead and passed it anyway, even though 60% or so of the american people opposed it. i want to say tonight to the democratic colleagues who push sod hard for it who said it wasn't a move toward government control and socialism, there's one foreign leader who think it was a move in the right direction. that's the communist leader from cue bark fidel castro who contacted the press of the united states and said it was a

giant step in the right direction that ought to tell us something. -- from cuba, fidel castro, who contacted the press of the united states and said it was a giant step in the right direction and that ought to tell us something. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. inslee of washington for today and mr. ruppersberger of maryland for today and the balance the week. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from virginia rise? north carolina. sorry. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address the house, reth rhett their remarks and include therein extraneous material. mr. poe, today and april 14, 15, 16, and 1020 for five minutes each. mr. burton, today and april 14,

15, and 16 for five minutes each. mr. jones today and april 14, 15, 16, and 20 for five minutes each. mr. moran, today, april 14, and 15 and 20, five minutes each. mr. neugebauer today, five minutes. ms. ros-lehtinen, today, april 14 and 15, five minutes each, ms. foxx, today, april 14, 15, and 20, five minutes each. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio rise? ms. sutton: i ask that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, that the following members may be permitted to address the house for five minutes and revise and extend their remarks. ms. sutton for five minutes, ms. woolsey of california for five minutes, ms. kaptur of

ohio for five minutes, and mr. defazio of oregon for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, and under a previous order of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. ms. sutton of ohio. ms. sutton: madam speaker, i rise today with a heavy heart to honor the life and service of police officer james kersetter. . kerstetter. on march 15, he was tragically shot and killed in the line of duty while responding to the domestic call. he made the sacrifice, putting his life on the line to protect another. the officer was a committed public servant. he was a member of the department for 15 years. he was a member of the s.w.a.t.

team and taught the rookie officers at the department. he was the lead crash investigator and prior to joining the police force, he served with the lorraine county sheriff's department. but even more importantly, he was the loving and devoted husband of wife tammy and the proud father of three daughters, misty, shelby and bailey. james kerstetter was known as sponge to his fellow officers and was called jimmy by his family. and imy was a humble family man, a loving husband, father, son, brother and uncle. he never wished for the spotlight, but he touched the lives of people all across the community with his outgoing spirit. his death has been a shock to his family, the city and numerous communities throughout

ohio. over the past weeks, we have seen just how much he meant to so many. jimmy knew that his family are worth the service that he dedicated himself to, a community he grew up in. he served in and embraced. his memory will live on in the hearts of the family, friends and the community that he touched so very deeply. he is and always will be a community hero, a national hero. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr. poe of texas. mr. neugebauer: permission to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. neugebauer: i rise today to recognize fred zogman who

remembers the holocaust in educating future generations on the many lessons learned. in march, 2002, fred was appointed chairman of the holocaust memorial counsel by president bush. the mum is a living memorial to the holocaust is a point of inspiration to promote human dignity. since 1993, the museum has welcomed three million visitors. as chairman, fred is leaving the museum's to build the endowment campaign and increasing educational opportunities for students. he has broadened the focus beyond telling the story of the holocaust. one of fred's greater accomplishment as chairman of the museum has been developing a profile and influence of the committee on conscience and in turn, calling increased attention to genocide around the world.

this week, the u.s. holocaust memorial museum is honoring fred. this is a man -- i can't think anybody who deserves this more. fred is a leader who has guided the transformation of the museum into a global institution that challenges people to remember, to learn and to act. inspired by the survivors and their legacy, fred has placed the museum at the forefront of the holocaust education and empowered to create a more just world. the holocaust museum is stronger because of his leadership and dedication. not only is fred known for his work here in washington but a fellow text ann. i have had the -- text ann. i have worked with fred and seen his devotion to this great american institution. i recognize fred and many successes the holocaust museum has seen in recent years.

thank you for your service. i look forward to your continued future leadership. the speaker pro tempore: mr. hare of illinois. mr. hare: thank you, madam speaker. i rise to recognize my chief case worker, va shelton, who will retire at the end of this month after 25 years of service to our nation. guinea, as she is known, handled one of the most important jobs, outreach veterans. my predecessor fought for our nation's heroes. i have sought to continue that legacy, but the concept has always been ginny, who has dedicated her entire career to the men and women in women. she is known for countless hours explaining rights to veterans who are looking to exercise

them. she built invaluable relationships with v.a. staff and putting herself in the best position to advocate for the constituents who sought her help. she study yesterday hard and made herself on v.a. disbuilt health care and other benefits. for ginny, serving our veterans was a labor of love whether on the phone or over a drink, ginny listened and learned about the lives of our veterans. she was not only an advocate but a friend. she recognized hyped every case file was a human being and when it comes to our veterans, justice delayed is justice denied and ginny was passionate about the veterans' homelessness. she was active in the local standdown, an event where heroes are provided hair cuts, food, medical care, a place to stay for the night and counseling. she believed that our nation should have a standdown 365 days

a year. inspired by her efforts, i introduced a bill last year to reduce veterans' homelessness. and she was instrumental in helping me secure outpatient care. veterans will use this facility during the first year of operation. many veterans will no longer have to travel hours just to receive basic care. and ginny managed my nomination to america's service academy, fully investing herself in the process to ensure that they get the best care possible. and she treated each applicant as if they were one of her own kids. i know one of her favorite things to do is visit the academy and see the men and women who will be our future warriors. she has been a beautiful friend to my wife and i. her late husband jack is very proud of her today. there are many things i will

miss about ginny, her sense of humor, that voice, her invaluable advice and guidance but our veterans will miss her the most. her retirement is the end of an era. she leaves the legacy marked by unselfless work and the work for our veterans. ginny shelton is a hero. thank you so much for 25 years of wonderful work. i yield back, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: mr. burton of indiana. ms. ros-lehtinen: madam speaker, i claim tore claim the time. the speaker pro tempore: ms. ros-lehtinen will claim mr. burton's time. ms. ros-lehtinen: i thank my good friend from texas, judge poe for the time as well. this morning, my good friend, congressman ron klein and i held a press conference at the little havana nutrition and activity center where we unveiled our

medicare fraud bill. this hurts our most vulnerable citizens. our south florida community knows firsthand the hardship that it creates. in 2008, approximately 703 million in false medicare claims originated from south florida. last year, that figure rose to $952 million from south florida. our community needs to say in no uncertain terms that fraud and abuse in medicare will not be tolerated and that our seniors will not be preyed upon by vandals. that is why congressman ron klein and i filed the medicare fraud enforcement and prevention act. this legislation will help curb the fraud in the medicare system. it will not only toughen the penalties on those individuals who engage in fraud, but it will also help implement new

screening procedures and biometric checks for all medicare claims and services. medicare fraud is not isolated to cases that involve rogue individuals. unfortunately, the reality is that more and more medicare fraud is being perpetrated by groups that are organized and are sophisticated in their techniques. this bipartisan bill will help catch up existing rules and regulations with the reality of today's threats. fraud and abuse cost the medicare system billions of dollars each year. it costs the system in fact, $60 billion every year. it harms the health care industry as a whole and it undermines the market for legitimate health care products. it hurts legitimate suppliers who cannot compete with illegitimate suppliers who pad their income by billing for services that they never

rendered. fraud undermines public confidence in health care providers. the klein-ros-lehtinen bill will create a strong deterrent for would-be criminals by doubling the fines and jail time for those convicted of scamming the medicare system. it reeighths a new offense for illegally dispensing a medicare i.d. and establishes a penalty of three years in prison and fine equivalent to the dollar amount stolen from medicare. the klein-ros-lehtinen bill doubles the been atlanta for making false statements and for violating the anti-kickback statute from five to 10 years in prison and from $25,000 to a $50,000 fine. the klein-ros-lehtinen bill will create a pilot program that will implement biometric technology

to ensure that medicare beneficiaries are physically present to receive those services. this bill mandates strict background checks for medicare suppliers that would be carried out before they start cashing those taxpayer checks. since its inception in the year 2007, miami-dade county's interagency helped stem the tide of medicare fraud. it has gotten more than $220 million in court-ordered restitution to medicare from defendants in 87 separate cases. the task force has saved medicare approximately $1.75 million in phony claims submissions. but, madam speaker, there is much more that needs to be done. the bill that ron klein and i have filed today will help give

law enforcement the tools necessary to make even more arrests and to crack down on fraud in a more efficient and effective manner. it will direct the secretary of health and human services to provide real-time access to data regarding fraud that will then be given to local law enforcement officials. the klein ros-lehtinen bill directs the g.a.o., the government accountability office to follow up with medicare contractors and report back to us in congress with recommendations to make this system work even better for seniors all across the country. i thank the speaker for the time. and i thank judge poe for the time as well. i yield back, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: ms. woolsey of california. ms. woolsey: madam speaker, a war that is illegitimate with no continued justification continued justification inevitably